Local Birdcage Liner Promotes Background Check Lie

Our opponents just don’t want to let go of the lie about background checks:

Indeed, according to a recent poll from Quinnipiac University, 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales. It was widely known that the NRA was responsible for the demise of this bill, a common sense measure that was overwhelmingly supported by its own members.

The 92% number can retire into history with every other lie these people tell. Why? Because we know now that in a deep blue state, with billionaires outspending the pro-gun message 10:1, the best they could do was 59% of the vote, and it outright LOST in all the counties outside of the puget sound area (except for one eastern county). Those counties are where all the NRA members and gun owners are that supposedly support this 92%. What people tell pollsters is not necessarily what they’ll do at the voting booth, especially when it comes to opinions on guns. I also, in my response, took issue with the claim about background checks:

This is not about background checks. After Sandy Hook, we put a background check compromise on the table, lead by Senator Tom Coburn. I would have implemented Universal Background Checks in a manner that was satisfactory to gun owners and probably the NRA. Schumer laughed it out of the room, then introduced his own measure which would have criminalized handing a gun to someone else to look at, among other things. It was a trojan horse.

The problem is, the gun control groups have been trying to slip a lot by in these background check initiatives. For instance, in the Manchin-Toomey amendment, it would have stripped the safe travel provisions we fought hard for in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. This was only the tip of the iceberg of garbage Schumer was trying to get passed under the guise of background checks.

Again, we saw the same deceit in Washington State, where I-594 bans mere TRANSFERS of firearms, e.g. giving a firearm to someone else to shoot anywhere that’s not an “authorized range” a term which I-594 conveniently does not define. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife had to restructure it’s hunting education program to deal with this nonsense, since as it was structured presently would be illegal under I-594. They did this by deputizing the instructors, so they would fall under the law enforcement exception, in order to be able to hand a firearm to a student to teach them. Ordinary NRA instructors don’t have this option.

This is what is defined as reasonable? They know it’s unreasonable. What they are hoping for is that no one else notices these are radical measures couched in language that trick most people into believing they support it.